CCTV PCN Henshall Road, N1, Help, trying to defend this. Any ideas? |
CCTV PCN Henshall Road, N1, Help, trying to defend this. Any ideas? |
Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 10:16
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 12 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,982 |
Im not the registered owner of the vehicle its my stepfather. Already emailed Islington. Here are my mails and their responses in chronological order:
8 JAN Dear Islington Council, I would like to appeal the above PCN received by my step-father, ....... of ........., NW3 ... via a notice to owner. I am appealing the alleged contravention cited as 52JM for the following reasons; 1. The images sent via the notice to owner do not show the vehicle contravening any traffic signs. For the PCN to be valid, there should be evidence that a contravention was made. Are you able to provide images of the signs that you allege the vehicle passed in the PCN? If you cannot then the PCN is not valid. 2. The PCN alleges that that the vehicle failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle, motor vehicles. However, the signs at the entrance of the street are only visible when turning into Henshall Street. Once I've committed to doing that then stopping in the middle of a busy road (Balls Pond Road full of heavy traffic), might cause an accident, endanger my life (struck by oncoming traffic) or the lives of other drivers. 3. The signage at this location is not compliant with legal requirments. Note previous PATAS ruling: "The appellant raises the issue of signage. I am satisfied for the reasons given by my learned colleague Mr Greenslade in PATAS case reference 2090478790 decided on 23 November 2009 as upheld on review by my learned colleague Ms Jones on 4 March 2010 that signage at this location is not compliant with the legal requirements notwithstanding the reliance placed by the authority on Section 18 (1) (a) The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 that provision I note being referred to Mr Greenslade in his decision and thus I infer considered by him. I accordingly find that the contravention has not been proved. I allow the appeal." The above three points would win a PATAS appeal. If you are unwilling to allow my appeal to stand then please provide detailed reasons to the above three points. Kind regards, 22 JAN ANSWER: Dear Mr ...... Penalty Charge Notice No. IS33110207 Date of Issue 09/12/2014 at 16:06 Location of Contravention Henshall Street, N1 Thank you for your email regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice which was recently received at this office. As you were not the person upon whom the Penalty Charge Notice was served, the law does not allow us to treat your challenge as formal representations and thus you do not have the right to appeal to the independent adjudicators. The person to whom we sent the Penalty Charge Notice is the person who is responsible for the penalty charge, it is really for that person to make formal representations, within the time specified on the Penalty Charge Notice, against paying the charge, should they so wish. However, I have reviewed this case and note that the PCN was issued for failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle. The enclosed photographs show that all motor vehicles are prohibited from entering Henshall Street from Balls Pond Road. There are "no left turn" and "no right turn" signs in balls pond Road as well as the "no entry to motor vehicles" signs at the junction of Henshall street and Balls Pond Road. The signage is compliant with the legislation and PATAS decisions from 5 years ago do not affect this case. Signage may have been amended since and each individual case is considered on its merits. The Traffic management Order for Henshall street is attached confirming its compliance with the legislation. I am therefore upholding the charge. Your choices now are to either to pay the penalty charge or allow the matter to progress against the person to whom we sent the Penalty Charge Notice. If no action is taken we may issue a Charge Certificate to that person advising that the right to appeal has expired and that the charge has increased to £195.00 I have decided that, if you wish to settle the matter, we can accept the discounted amount of £65.00 provided we receive that before 9 February 2015. Please bear in mind that on that date the charge will revert to £130.00 before increasing to £195.00 if the Charge Certificate is sent out. You can make credit and debit card payment on - 020 7527 2000 - at any time. You can also pay on line at www.islington.gov.uk. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the address below. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number). Yours sincerely Steven Bolton Correspondence and Appeals Officer Traffic and Parking Services Islington Council Email. Islingtonparking@civica-rm.co.uk Website. www.islington.gov.uk Phone. Contact Islington 020 7527 2000 Fax. 020 7527 6496 MY ANSWER BACK ON 23 jan Dear Mr Bolton, Further to your response to my appeal, there seems to be a number of discrepancies as follows: 1. If you do not believe (or do not wish to treat this) as a formal representation, then surely you should not have replied to me? Therefore, since you have, should I understand that we have now made a formal representation or would you prefer my stepfather to copy paste this and email you directly? He's on cc and you've already entered into correspondence according to UK law. However for the avoidance of doubt please clarify. 2. The images you sent do not show the vehicle in question and the sign that you allege it has contravened in the same image. Apparently Islington Council has not positioned its cameras in the correct position in order to clearly show that an offence has taken place. Therefore I maintain that the PCN is not valid. 3. The no left turn and no right turn signs are not relevant if they were then the PCN should've included code number 50 "failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn" however there's no mention of that on the PCN. For the above reasons and others (various procedural improprieties i.e.: failing to respond to the correct person), we reject your request to pay the PCN below and now would like to apply to PATAS so that we may address these points in further detail. Please confirm that you will post the application form. Sincerely, ....... DIDNT HEAR ANYTHING SO SENT THIS ON 1ST FEB Dear Mr Bolton, Its been over a week since we emailed Islington Council but no reply has been received to my email below. For the avoidance of doubt, the owner of the vehicle will email you directly also to confirm that the below marries with his position on this. And I ask again for Islington Council to send the PATAS application form. We will contact PATAS anyway so that in the event that you do not send the form, then we will inform them of this and take the necessary action to ensure that this alleged contravention is defended under our full rights and remedies. Kindly ensure that we receive a reply and/or confirm as soon as possible that at the very least, the PATAS application form will be sent. Regards, ......... and ....... (owner of the vehicle) RECEIVED THIS REPLY 2 FEB Dear Mr ..... Penalty Charge Notice No. IS33110207 Date of Issue 09/12/2014 at 16:06 Location of Contravention Henshall Street, N1 Thank you for your e-mail regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was recently received at this office. As confirmed by my colleague in his previous e-mail, as you were not the person upon whom the PCN was served, the law does not allow us to treat your challenge as formal representations and thus you do not have the right to appeal to the independent adjudicators. The person to whom we sent the PCN is the person who is responsible for the penalty charge, it is really for that person to make formal representations, within the time specified on the PCN, against paying the charge, should they so wish. You have stated in your e-mail of 23 January 2015 that by entering into e-mail communication with you, we have entered into a formal process. However, this is not the case. Under legislation, we are only able to respond formally to the person to whom statutory documentation is issued. We are, however, able to address correspondence from a third party as formal representations providing we have written authority from the registered keeper to do so. In these circumstances, the registered keeper remains responsible for payment of the penalty charge. On this occasion, however, we have not received any correspondence from the registered keeper authorising us to address any correspondence from you as formal representations and as such, whilst we are able to respond to you, it is on an informal basis. The fact that the registered keeper has been "cc'd" into your e-mails does not provide authorisation for us to respond formally to you. I fully acknowledge your statement that the images which my colleague have provided to you do not show the vehicle and the contravened signs in the same photograph. However, this is not a requirement in order to enforce the PCN. The PCN needs to confirm details of the contravention which is identified to have occurred and the location where this was identified. The photographs on the PCN need to support this, but I would add that they are only a selection of the images available. However, the photographs provided by my colleague in his e-mail of 22 January 2014 are sufficient to confirm that adequate warning is given to drivers of the prohibition and that the area is monitored by CCTV cameras. When using the highway, it is the responsibility of the driver to take note of road signs in specific locations and to make sure that they understand any information or instruction given. I have also taken full note of the comments made in your e-mail regarding the relevancy of the "no left" and "no right" signs which are in place in Balls Pond Road. In response to the comments you have made, I would advise that the purpose of these signs is to provide advance warning to drivers of the prohibition which is in place in Henshall Street. The PCN has not been issued under contravention code "50" for this reason. Having reviewed the case myself today, I am satisfied that the correct decision was previously made by my colleague, Mr Bolton. Therefore, I will also be upholding the penalty charge. Your choices now are to either to pay the penalty charge or allow the matter to progress against the person to whom we sent the PCN. If no action is taken we may issue a Charge Certificate to that person advising that the right to appeal has expired and that the charge has increased to £195.00 I have decided that, if you wish to settle the matter, we can accept the discounted amount of £65.00 provided we receive that before 16 February 2015. Please bear in mind that on that date the charge will revert to £130.00 before increasing to £195.00 if the Charge Certificate is sent out. You can make credit and debit card payment on - 020 7527 2000 - at any time. You can also pay on line at www.islington.gov.uk. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the above address. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number). Yours sincerely Kathryn Leech Correspondence and Appeals Officer Traffic & Parking Services Islington Council Islington Parking Appeals PO Box 2019 Pershore WR10 9BN I ANSWERED SAME DAY (YESTERDAY) Dear Ms Leech, Thank you for this email. Can you please check the emails received today as ...... has in fact already emailed Mr Bolton earlier today to inform him that he authorises me to submit representations on his behalf. Can you confirm therefore that we have now made a formal representation? And send the PATAS application form? Also will you provide me with the legislation you refer to below in paragraph 3 so that I may properly understand my rights? Regards, .......... on behalf of (my stepfather) And my stepfather had sent this email on 1st Feb: Dear Mr Bolton, My stepson Mr ........ has asked that I as owner of the vehicle in question contact you about the PATAS application form. Would you please send a copy to me at .................... as well as a copy to my stepson. I understand my stepson's position on this alleged contravention and his wish to appeal against it. He has my full support. Please let us hear from you promptly. Yours truly, ......... |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 10:16
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:10
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 12 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,982 |
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons. Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment. The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings. If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows. Which is it? The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it. This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road. |
|
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:30
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons. Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment. The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings. If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows. Which is it? The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it. This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road. How have these signs been updated? They are still in their infamous position surely i.e. on BPR? Therefore, contravention as stated on PCN did not occur. This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:36 -------------------- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know. "Hippocrates" |
|
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 17:49
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 1 Feb 2015 From: Angel Square, LG floor Member No.: 75,473 |
"Comrade Zorin, noone ever leaves the KGB." A view to a kill (1985) Not even The Black Beret. Apparently, they are putting a statue up in his honour, I think it's only fair. The sacrifice was tremendous. As regards BPR, the images on Bing are 2014. There was once a member here who had an excellent list of cases, don't you think he should get a statue too? Mr. Solomon represented the Appellant (who did not himself attend) today. The Authority was not represented. Having viewed the CCTV footage, there is no doubt the appellant's vehicle made the turn described by the Authority. The issue is adequacy of signage. I have considered the site plan and still photographs provided by the Authority. On that evidence, whilst I am satisfied the signage may be adequate for vehicle proposing to turn left from Balls Pond Road into Henshall Street, I am not so satisfied for those turning right. This vehicle plainly made a right hand turn. The site map shows only the signs at the entrance prohibiting cars and motorcycles. That is too late - the turn is well under way before they can be seen. There are no signs prohibiting turns on the map. The still photographs show one or more signs but not their location in relation to the signage. The Authority does have to show the signage was adequate and compliant and on this evidence I find they have not. I allow the Appeal. |
|
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 18:08
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Well, all the ducks seem in a row for a successful appeal at PATAS.
Now the only issue is if it can get that far. |
|
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 23:41
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
"Comrade Zorin, noone ever leaves the KGB." A view to a kill (1985) Not even The Black Beret. Apparently, they are putting a statue up in his honour, I think it's only fair. The sacrifice was tremendous. There was once a member here who had an excellent list of cases, don't you think he should get a statue too? If you mean The Black Beret, this may be costly in view of his corpulence. No idea who is the subject. This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 00:03 -------------------- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know. "Hippocrates" |
|
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 09:28
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
It is hard to tell from the photo but it looks like a single dotted line across the left (as we look into the no entry) of Henshall St and a double dotted line on the right with a give way triangle painted on the carriageway thus implying that the left hand side can be driven over to enter? Surely if you can't drive into this street the double dotted line should go all the way across as it did in 2009 (see photo on this link). Ambiguity should be construed in favour of the one who suffers by it.
What is really needed of course is a small island with room for a cyclist to get through the gap left for them and then proper no entry signs on the rest but that wouldn't make any money. [Be warned: Moving traffic contravention enforcement is about to start in Barnet. I expect I'll end up checking them all and suggesting layout improvements.] -------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 09:56
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 12 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,982 |
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons. Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment. The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings. If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows. Which is it? The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it. This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road. How have these signs been updated? They are still in their infamous position surely i.e. on BPR? Therefore, contravention as stated on PCN did not occur. OK got you. Was at my parents last night, stepdad signed the back of NTO for appeal. Was planning to post that in today. Maybe I should state exiting reasons on there just to get them to send me the Rejection and PATAS application? Will scan and get my stepdad to email too. Then when I appeal to Patas go for the non compliant signage? Just thinking if i do that now on NTO, they may not respond at all as they fear they could lose on that point?? Trying to be strategic.... :-) |
|
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 11:46
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons. Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment. The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings. If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows. Which is it? The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it. This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road. How have these signs been updated? They are still in their infamous position surely i.e. on BPR? Therefore, contravention as stated on PCN did not occur. OK got you. Was at my parents last night, stepdad signed the back of NTO for appeal. Was planning to post that in today. Maybe I should state exiting reasons on there just to get them to send me the Rejection and PATAS application? Will scan and get my stepdad to email too. Then when I appeal to Patas go for the non compliant signage? Just thinking if i do that now on NTO, they may not respond at all as they fear they could lose on that point?? Trying to be strategic.... :-) There is no NTO in this matter! Which document do you mean? The enforcement process: http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/en...vingtraffic.htm This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 12:06 -------------------- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know. "Hippocrates" |
|
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 15:17
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 12 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,982 |
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons. Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment. The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings. If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows. Which is it? The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it. This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road. How have these signs been updated? They are still in their infamous position surely i.e. on BPR? Therefore, contravention as stated on PCN did not occur. OK got you. Was at my parents last night, stepdad signed the back of NTO for appeal. Was planning to post that in today. Maybe I should state exiting reasons on there just to get them to send me the Rejection and PATAS application? Will scan and get my stepdad to email too. Then when I appeal to Patas go for the non compliant signage? Just thinking if i do that now on NTO, they may not respond at all as they fear they could lose on that point?? Trying to be strategic.... :-) There is no NTO in this matter! Which document do you mean? The enforcement process: http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/en...vingtraffic.htm Sorry you are right it was a PCN received by post. But on the back is the right to challenge it. I mean I willl send them that. I need to get an official rejection letter in order to get to PATAS.... |
|
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 17:25
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent.
This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 17:26 -------------------- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know. "Hippocrates" |
|
|
Tue, 10 Feb 2015 - 16:42
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 12 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,982 |
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent. We ended up emailing them again this time sent from my stepfather last week on Friday. They have only now responded to the first email that my stepfather sent basically restating the same thing that they do not regard my initial email as representation and it seems that they are disregarding the second email sent from him. The government legislation clearly states that parking authorities are supposed to be flexible with those making reps. Islington arrant at all. Its obvious that he has authorised me to make reps on his behalf. Both Barnet and Hackney were happy to deal with me directly its only Islington that are being shitty with me. Im thinking at this point to actually go directly to PATAS and make the application with them regardless. I believe that we are entitled to do that and Islington Council is obglied to respond. |
|
|
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 - 09:26
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 12 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,982 |
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent. In the end I phoned and they confirmed that the rejection letter would be sent. The formal appeal had been made on the basis that the prohibited vehicle signs are not compliant due to one of them clearly being situated on Balls Pond Road and not on Henshall St. Now I also have the PATAS form from them and can fill it out for my stepfather to sign. The question is, whats the exact legislation that I am referring to which makes the signs non-compliant? Thanks for your help. Can upload their rejection letter if you would like to see it. |
|
|
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 - 10:13
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Sounds like good news.
Get the NOR and PATAS forms in your hands and we can breathe a sigh of relief. Then register the appeal, even if with simple Signs are not compliant therefore contravention did not occur. And make sure Dad signs it. He can add authority for you to deal with it. RE legislation, pull up the previos cases already linked, from memory all that is needed is in them. |
|
|
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 - 19:17
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent. In the end I phoned and they confirmed that the rejection letter would be sent. The formal appeal had been made on the basis that the prohibited vehicle signs are not compliant due to one of them clearly being situated on Balls Pond Road and not on Henshall St. Now I also have the PATAS form from them and can fill it out for my stepfather to sign. The question is, whats the exact legislation that I am referring to which makes the signs non-compliant? Thanks for your help. Can upload their rejection letter if you would like to see it. Let's see it. -------------------- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know. "Hippocrates" |
|
|
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 - 10:47
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 12 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,982 |
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent. In the end I phoned and they confirmed that the rejection letter would be sent. The formal appeal had been made on the basis that the prohibited vehicle signs are not compliant due to one of them clearly being situated on Balls Pond Road and not on Henshall St. Now I also have the PATAS form from them and can fill it out for my stepfather to sign. The question is, whats the exact legislation that I am referring to which makes the signs non-compliant? Thanks for your help. Can upload their rejection letter if you would like to see it. Let's see it. Thanks for replying will upload tonight. |
|
|
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 15:45
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 12 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,982 |
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent. In the end I phoned and they confirmed that the rejection letter would be sent. The formal appeal had been made on the basis that the prohibited vehicle signs are not compliant due to one of them clearly being situated on Balls Pond Road and not on Henshall St. Now I also have the PATAS form from them and can fill it out for my stepfather to sign. The question is, whats the exact legislation that I am referring to which makes the signs non-compliant? Thanks for your help. Can upload their rejection letter if you would like to see it. Let's see it. Thanks for replying will upload tonight. |
|
|
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 16:25
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
TWOC ground clearly limits to theft and there is no requirement to produce a police crime reference.
-------------------- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know. "Hippocrates" |
|
|
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 17:05
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
My view is that when councils offer the 50% just before PATAS it is because they think there is a good chance they will lose.
-------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 17:26
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 12 Sep 2014 Member No.: 72,982 |
My view is that when councils offer the 50% just before PATAS it is because they think there is a good chance they will lose. Hi Mr Mustard!! Hows it going? Really interesting point. Because they dont have to do that at all.... TWOC ground clearly limits to theft and there is no requirement to produce a police crime reference. Sorry I didn't understand. |
|
|
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 20:33
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
My view is that when councils offer the 50% just before PATAS it is because they think there is a good chance they will lose. Hi Mr Mustard!! Hows it going? Really interesting point. Because they dont have to do that at all.... TWOC ground clearly limits to theft and there is no requirement to produce a police crime reference. Sorry I didn't understand. Case Reference: 2110212199 Appellant: Mr Authority: Islington VRM: PCN: IS2284987A Contravention Date: 12 Feb 2011 Contravention Time: 12:06 Contravention Location: Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5 Penalty Amount: £120.00 Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited Decision Date: 07 Jul 2011 Adjudicator: Teresa Brennan Appeal Decision: Allowed Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons: Mr appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal. One of the issues that Mr raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent. In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30 th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading. The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal. -------------------- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know. "Hippocrates" |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:50 |